Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Bond did not love tracy


73 replies to this topic

#1 bondfisher007

bondfisher007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 36 posts

Posted 14 March 2011 - 09:16 PM

How can we expect him to love tracy when they didn't even see each other a lot? In my opinion bond loved vesper more and that was his true love. Look how close vesper and bond were

Edited by bondfisher007, 14 March 2011 - 11:06 PM.


#2 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 14 March 2011 - 10:38 PM

Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.

#3 Agent Leiter

Agent Leiter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:Shooting to Thrill

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:47 AM

Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!

#4 bondfisher007

bondfisher007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 36 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:42 PM


Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!


why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.

#5 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:48 PM



Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!


why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.


Are you joking? Have you ever read any of Ian Flemings work? You see, some of the films were based on his books.

#6 bondfisher007

bondfisher007

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 36 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:06 PM




Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!


why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.


Are you joking? Have you ever read any of Ian Flemings work? You see, some of the films were based on his books.

I never read the books so maybe this is why I am confused?

#7 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:24 PM

I never read the books so maybe this is why I am confused?


That explains it and if you had read the books you would have never asked the questions.

CR was the first book and yes, Bond fell in love with Vesper and she killed herself after revealing she was a double agent.

10 years later Fleming wrote OHMSS and (as in the movie), Bond falls in love, marries Tracy and she is killed by Blofeld.

The next book Bond is in a depression about the death of Tracy in a way he never was with Vesper.

#8 Dell Deaton

Dell Deaton

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1194 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 March 2011 - 02:32 PM

Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.

Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!

why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.

Are you joking? Have you ever read any of Ian Flemings work? You see, some of the films were based on his books.

I never read the books so maybe this is why I am confused?

While I wouldn't want to judge whether or not you may be confused here, I don't think one gets anything like a realistic understanding of Bond's progressive relationship with women based merely on the films. Not only is there obviously a sequencing issue (which, if memory serves, manifests itself in the 1969 movie, which differs from the book in that James Bond does not visit Vesper's grave), but also in the number of things which seem to have been over-played in the context of justifying Daniel Craig as a "new and improved 007."

More generally, think of this. Bond was something like a decade older (as was Ian Fleming) and numerous women wiser from Vesper to Tracy. And, while the movie (unsuccessfully, I think) tried to make Vesper more sympathetic than the book ever painted her as, she was more of a "schoolboy crush" than mature love. The points about extensive dating in On Her Majesty's Secret Service are well-taken. There was also trust and a relationship. Tracy literally saved Bond's life after his escape from Blofeld. They were true partners.

Vesper played Bond. And, when you think of the end with Le Chiffre, her game handed Bond up to one of the worst betrayals of his life. She committed suicide, why? I've never bought the attempted rehabilitation at the end of the 2006 movie. Vesper died because she was trapped. There's also the other lover she was trying to protect.

Disclaimer: I'm not a big Tracy fan, in the end. Certainly not on-screen, although I guess I'd give a bit more to the one described in the book.

#9 OmarB

OmarB

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1151 posts
  • Location:Queens, NY, USA

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:19 PM

Love the title of the topic, could have only come from someone who never read the respective books. Yes, Bond loved Tracy, loved her lots more than he loved Vesper.

#10 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:39 PM

Bond found his voice saying those words that he had never said in his life before, never expected to say.
'Tracy. I love you. Will you marry me?'
She turned very pale. She looked at him wonderingly. Her lips trembled. 'You mean that?'
'Yes, I mean it. With all my heart.'


Ian Fleming's On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Fan Note:
Given what Fleming wrote above in OHMSS then: therefore: Bond found his voice saying those words that he had never said in his life before, never expected to say. shouldn't your point be BOND DID NOT LOVE VESPER?

Just a thought :)

Harry Fawkes

#11 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:54 PM

Oh yeah and by the way bondfisher007, just before I piss off out of your head may I gently recommend you read the wonderful Fan Fic piece by CHRISNO1 - O.H.M.S.S. '67 which you can find on the main Fan Fic thread.

You won't be disappointed believe me!

Nuf Said

HF

#12 billy007

billy007

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 162 posts
  • Location:Delaware USA

Posted 15 March 2011 - 08:56 PM

Should we distinguish between the books or the movies when we discuss this topic?
Bond's feeling for Tracy were a lot more profound in he book OHMSS

#13 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 16 March 2011 - 03:51 PM

Should we distinguish between the books or the movies when we discuss this topic?
Bond's feeling for Tracy were a lot more profound in he book OHMSS



Just curious. what makes you think Bond's feelings were more profound in the book than the film?

#14 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 16 March 2011 - 03:56 PM

Should we distinguish between the books or the movies when we discuss this topic?
Bond's feeling for Tracy were a lot more profound in he book OHMSS


That's a fair question, and right here in this thread we have evidence that not everyone got the same impression from the movie as Fleming readers did from the book.

In my view, there's a few things working against the "romance" in the film; one, Lazenby, for all his appeal, was not the ideal guy for the job when it comes to getting across the full range and depth of human emotions. Like any newcomer to the screen, he was awkward in this regard and, at least in my opinion, doesn't "sell" the romance as fully as a more seasoned performer might have.

Second, up to this point the only Bond moviegoers had known was a physical superman and paragon of "cool" who went through women in huge numbers without forming any emotional attachment whatever. Asking us to believe Tracy tamed the ultimate bachelor when Pussy, Honey and the rest couldn't was asking a lot, especially when the audience already had a resistance to accepting a "new fella" anyway. It didn't really help to "establish" the romance with a corny "perfume commercial" montage that probably had fans of the sex, death and mayhem Connery entries crawling under their seats (Look! You can tell they're in love because they're riding horses in the sunshine! And now they're at the beach! But where's the scene of him chasing her through a field of wildflowers?...though you do have to love the song) I imagine a lot of moviegoers thought, "Well, I knew this guy was no Connery, and now there's your proof! Sean would never have acted like that over a girl." Things that Fleming could do to "sell" Bond's emotional surrender in a book -- where we can see inside the character's head -- cannot be achieved in the medium of film, and Hunt's approaches to the problem don't wholly work for me.

And third, the film does hedge its bets on the "Bond image" front by having him sleep with almost every girl at Piz Gloria, as if to say, "Look, the new guy's even hornier than the first one! Oh, um...except for the end...at the end, he's read to settle down with one girl forever. Really." I know it's the 60s, but seriously it's hard to believe he could be THAT devoted to Tracy if he's banging everything in a skirt as soon as he's out of her sight.

So, if you say, "Bond didn't really love Tracy," well obviously, that's wrong. But if you say, "the film never convinced me Bond loved Tracy," I absolutely sympathize. Yes, it helps to have read the book, but ideally a film should be able to do its job without asking the audience to supplement their viewing with required reading.

#15 Harry Fawkes

Harry Fawkes

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2229 posts
  • Location:Malta G.C

Posted 16 March 2011 - 04:56 PM

Should we distinguish between the books or the movies when we discuss this topic?
Bond's feeling for Tracy were a lot more profound in he book OHMSS


That's a fair question, and right here in this thread we have evidence that not everyone got the same impression from the movie as Fleming readers did from the book.

In my view, there's a few things working against the "romance" in the film; one, Lazenby, for all his appeal, was not the ideal guy for the job when it comes to getting across the full range and depth of human emotions. Like any newcomer to the screen, he was awkward in this regard and, at least in my opinion, doesn't "sell" the romance as fully as a more seasoned performer might have.

Second, up to this point the only Bond moviegoers had known was a physical superman and paragon of "cool" who went through women in huge numbers without forming any emotional attachment whatever. Asking us to believe Tracy tamed the ultimate bachelor when Pussy, Honey and the rest couldn't was asking a lot, especially when the audience already had a resistance to accepting a "new fella" anyway. It didn't really help to "establish" the romance with a corny "perfume commercial" montage that probably had fans of the sex, death and mayhem Connery entries crawling under their seats (Look! You can tell they're in love because they're riding horses in the sunshine! And now they're at the beach! But where's the scene of him chasing her through a field of wildflowers?...though you do have to love the song) I imagine a lot of moviegoers thought, "Well, I knew this guy was no Connery, and now there's your proof! Sean would never have acted like that over a girl." Things that Fleming could do to "sell" Bond's emotional surrender in a book -- where we can see inside the character's head -- cannot be achieved in the medium of film, and Hunt's approaches to the problem don't wholly work for me.

And third, the film does hedge its bets on the "Bond image" front by having him sleep with almost every girl at Piz Gloria, as if to say, "Look, the new guy's even hornier than the first one! Oh, um...except for the end...at the end, he's read to settle down with one girl forever. Really." I know it's the 60s, but seriously it's hard to believe he could be THAT devoted to Tracy if he's banging everything in a skirt as soon as he's out of her sight.

So, if you say, "Bond didn't really love Tracy," well obviously, that's wrong. But if you say, "the film never convinced me Bond loved Tracy," I absolutely sympathize. Yes, it helps to have read the book, but ideally a film should be able to do its job without asking the audience to supplement their viewing with required reading.


Very good point David_M

#16 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 March 2011 - 04:57 PM

I would be interested to see Craig´s Bond (the new time line) actually meet Tracy or a Tracy-like figure down the line - or maybe is a OHMSS remake planned in a few years? Maybe as Craig´s last Bond?

#17 Jump James

Jump James

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 293 posts

Posted 16 March 2011 - 05:12 PM





Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!


why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.


Are you joking? Have you ever read any of Ian Flemings work? You see, some of the films were based on his books.

I never read the books so maybe this is why I am confused?


Yes perhaps. You might not be into books which is fair enough but they are a good read. You can always get the audiobooks.

Well said David_M.

Edited by Jump James, 16 March 2011 - 05:13 PM.


#18 Dell Deaton

Dell Deaton

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1194 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 March 2011 - 08:39 PM

Good -- and sometimes "tough" -- stuff here.

Every once in a while I'll try and think back to some event or another that will remind me which was truly my first hook to James Bond: Reading a certain Ian Fleming book, or seeing one of the Eon Productions films. In the end, I don't know that it would make much difference. Somehow I've managed to take both in as what defines ongoing personal interest in 007 for me, and have the two coexist without looking for conflict.

I might liken it to the various Bond actors. We can all pick a performance we'd consider lesser than others, and then maybe use this as a way to compare actors. But I don't feel compelled to feel comfortable with one man's portrayal of the fictional character by taking expense from another.

What I think is both clear and a credit to Eon (to this day) is the degree to which those folks have continued to use Ian Fleming's creative content, to varying degrees of fidelity. Not only with kudos to the producers, of course: I truly feel that Fleming was unique, and that his material enjoys a certain perpetuity because of that.

Now let's add to that the reality that we probably have a James Bond on three tracks. First, Fleming's Bond, which existed on the printed page, with all the opportunities and restrictions that go with it; also a Bond, which, in the case of the Vesper relationship, was born completely outside of the spotlight (ie, in the first novel, before which no one even knew to think there might be a James Bond). Second, the Saltzman-Broccoli-Bond, which was both built on Fleming (with a desire to be so), and influence by translation needs for the big screen. Add personalities, from Terence Young to Sean Connery, and all that was the time of the 1960s. Then George Lazenby, replacing Connery, and a 1969 film release.

Track 3, of course, is the so-called re-boot. Is it even the same James Bond as before? Are we looking for an arc that somehow circles back to Connery - or, in this case, ultimately, Lazenby? Yes, some homage to those early Eon films. And certainly to Fleming, albeit not of the just-post World War II vintage.

So, while this is all good, at a certain point I think we inevitably end up at the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief."

:)

#19 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 16 March 2011 - 11:26 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Bond loved both Tracy and Vesper.

#20 Agent Leiter

Agent Leiter

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 160 posts
  • Location:Shooting to Thrill

Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:24 PM



Bond and Tracey were seeing each other over a long period of time. If you watch OHMSS, then there's a huge montage scene of Bond and Tracey on dates, and spending a lot of time with each other. In fact, the time Bond and Tracey actually spent together was even more than Bond and Vesper did in Casino Royale. Bond did love Tracey, very much so.


Seconded.

One need not be too terribly familiar with the movies and either respective novel to tell that, while Vesper has a considerable impact on Bond, she hasn't got even the slightest edge on Tracy. Also, a statement such as "Bond did not love Tracy" is rather severe, don't you think? Bond certainly had feelings for Vesper as well as having loved Tracy later... such things are possible you know!


A possible consideration here is the fact that Vesper betrayed him while Tracy did not. What he had with Tracy lasted longer and was far more significant, and her sudden, senseless death on account of him was a truly jarring and traumatic experience compared to the Vesper situation.

It makes sense to me, anyway.

why does bond always refuse to fall in love after tracy death? what doesn't make sense is that he would have never married tracy if the filmakers made casino royale in 1962.



#21 Solex Agitator

Solex Agitator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Location:Augusta, GA

Posted 20 March 2011 - 08:22 AM

Bond loved.

#22 TheREAL008

TheREAL008

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1190 posts
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 24 March 2011 - 06:08 PM

Yes, yes he did.

#23 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 24 March 2011 - 08:02 PM

At the beginning, he got close to her so that Draco gave him information about Blofeld. but then he fell for her more and more, and they married... etc. etc. etc. That's from my POV.

#24 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 25 March 2011 - 03:07 AM

At the beginning, he got close to her so that Draco gave him information about Blofeld. but then he fell for her more and more, and they married... etc. etc. etc. That's from my POV.


Really? You POV? You don't suppose that's the POV that EVERYONE has on the movie?

#25 hilly

hilly

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Location:Lost. Last seen Brass Rubbing in Brittany

Posted 25 March 2011 - 12:24 PM

[quote name='Harry Fawkes' timestamp='1300294611' post='1148677']
it's hard to believe he could be THAT devoted to Tracy if he's banging everything in a skirt as soon as he's out of her sight.

Yep. The first time they meet, she's trying to kill herself. The next time they meet he slaps her, they have a one night stand and she does a runner. THEN he professes love for her, promptly goes off and shags his way around Piz Gloria...and then asks her to marry him.

Jeremy Kyle would have a field day!

#26 Dell Deaton

Dell Deaton

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1194 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 March 2011 - 01:44 PM

Not hard to believe at all after you've seen the way a lot of relationships go. I might also add that it's somewhat to the process - with Bond initially committing to be with Tracy, but not yet having internalized it. So he "acts out," as they say.

Add to that a big scoop of Ian Fleming here. Not only did the movie follow his novel in regard to what you're talking about here (in addition to elsewhere), but also Mr Fleming's attitudes and history in relationships, love, marriage.

#27 0077

0077

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 57 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 March 2011 - 06:38 PM

I would be interested to see Craig´s Bond (the new time line) actually meet Tracy or a Tracy-like figure down the line - or maybe is a OHMSS remake planned in a few years? Maybe as Craig´s last Bond?



THAT would be awesome! Leaving the new Bond to pick up where Daniel left off, without missing a beat. :D

Good call SAF.

In reality this is a one sided argument.

Edited by 0077, 25 March 2011 - 06:39 PM.


#28 Nicolas Suszczyk

Nicolas Suszczyk

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3735 posts
  • Location:Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 26 March 2011 - 08:13 PM


At the beginning, he got close to her so that Draco gave him information about Blofeld. but then he fell for her more and more, and they married... etc. etc. etc. That's from my POV.


Really? You POV? You don't suppose that's the POV that EVERYONE has on the movie?


Err... probably :lol:

#29 right idea, wrong pussy

right idea, wrong pussy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 200 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 10:26 AM

Should we distinguish between the books or the movies when we discuss this topic?
Bond's feeling for Tracy were a lot more profound in he book OHMSS


That's a fair question, and right here in this thread we have evidence that not everyone got the same impression from the movie as Fleming readers did from the book.

In my view, there's a few things working against the "romance" in the film; one, Lazenby, for all his appeal, was not the ideal guy for the job when it comes to getting across the full range and depth of human emotions. Like any newcomer to the screen, he was awkward in this regard and, at least in my opinion, doesn't "sell" the romance as fully as a more seasoned performer might have.

Second, up to this point the only Bond moviegoers had known was a physical superman and paragon of "cool" who went through women in huge numbers without forming any emotional attachment whatever. Asking us to believe Tracy tamed the ultimate bachelor when Pussy, Honey and the rest couldn't was asking a lot, especially when the audience already had a resistance to accepting a "new fella" anyway. It didn't really help to "establish" the romance with a corny "perfume commercial" montage that probably had fans of the sex, death and mayhem Connery entries crawling under their seats (Look! You can tell they're in love because they're riding horses in the sunshine! And now they're at the beach! But where's the scene of him chasing her through a field of wildflowers?...though you do have to love the song) I imagine a lot of moviegoers thought, "Well, I knew this guy was no Connery, and now there's your proof! Sean would never have acted like that over a girl." Things that Fleming could do to "sell" Bond's emotional surrender in a book -- where we can see inside the character's head -- cannot be achieved in the medium of film, and Hunt's approaches to the problem don't wholly work for me.

And third, the film does hedge its bets on the "Bond image" front by having him sleep with almost every girl at Piz Gloria, as if to say, "Look, the new guy's even hornier than the first one! Oh, um...except for the end...at the end, he's read to settle down with one girl forever. Really." I know it's the 60s, but seriously it's hard to believe he could be THAT devoted to Tracy if he's banging everything in a skirt as soon as he's out of her sight.

So, if you say, "Bond didn't really love Tracy," well obviously, that's wrong. But if you say, "the film never convinced me Bond loved Tracy," I absolutely sympathize. Yes, it helps to have read the book, but ideally a film should be able to do its job without asking the audience to supplement their viewing with required reading.


Very well put. I recently rewatched all the Bond films in a short time span (inspired by Zencat's feat), and OHMSS came off poorly, in large part due to Hunt and the screenwriters. The producers decision to cast a greenhorn in the role of Bond and then stick him with one of Fleming's more poignant books was pretty stupid as well, but things get far worse than they could have been given the writing/directing choices made in the film.

First, someone in the creative process of OHMSS (the film) seems to have forgotten about a little human trait called motivation. The goons in the precredits have no motivation to attack Bond. Draco's goons have little reason to either in the hotel/casino (at least until they kidnap Bond). Blofeld's plot goes from destroying British agriculture either because the Soviets are paying him to or because he plans to play the stock market with his advance knowledge to putting together an expensive and elaborate scheme to threaten the world in return for . . . a pardon and noble title?!?!

Second, this motivation issue comes to the fore with the Bond/Tracy relationship. One moment Bond tells Tracy to put her clothes on and leave, and the next moment he tells her that she's, "the most extraordinary girl". :confused: The montage seems like an act of desparation. Since these two characters have no reason to be in love, and since the writers and the director can't explain to us why they should fall in love, we simply get to see them falling in love, and we simply have to accept that what they're saying to each other during the bits of that montage somehow allow them to get to know each other and care for each other, etc. It didn't convince me, certainly not in the way that CR convinced me that Bond had fallen for Vesper.

#30 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 11 July 2011 - 11:44 AM

Second, this motivation issue comes to the fore with the Bond/Tracy relationship. One moment Bond tells Tracy to put her clothes on and leave, and the next moment he tells her that she's, "the most extraordinary girl". :confused: The montage seems like an act of desparation. Since these two characters have no reason to be in love, and since the writers and the director can't explain to us why they should fall in love, we simply get to see them falling in love, and we simply have to accept that what they're saying to each other during the bits of that montage somehow allow them to get to know each other and care for each other, etc. It didn't convince me, certainly not in the way that CR convinced me that Bond had fallen for Vesper.


You must try explain how the Bond-Vesper relationship works for you, then.

Meeting No. 1: she takes the piss out of Bond by telling him he's an arrogant, emotionless thug.
Scene No. 2: Bond explains he doesn't fancy Vesper anyway 'cos he's emotionally stunted and only [censored] married women.
Scene No. 3: Vesper humiliates Bond by buying him a Brioni evening suit, explaining it is superior to his own. Clearly, this is nothing more than a play for superiority in the partnership as it is plain Bond has taste in sophisticated clothing already as HE'S BEEN CLAD HEAD TO FOOT IN BRIONI SINCE HE AND VESPER MET!!!!
Scene No. 4: For no apparent reason, Bond decides to go listen in on Le Chiffre, taking Vesper with him, which then allows him to give her comfort in the shower in a scene that surpasses any of the cheese of the All The Time In The World montage.
Various Gambling Scenes: Bond plays cards, wins, does Vesper suddenly get all school-girl giddy as a consequence???? Bond begs her for extra cash; she turns him down, belittles him. She restarts his heart; again, is this the reason all the crap above suddenly turns to love???
Lastly: Bond almost gets his balls chopped off for Vesper. Is this the metaphor for all the above suddenly being discounted and Bond growing from a stunted action-thug into a man of deep caring and emotion, and Vesper from "Daddy Wanted a Little Boy" man-hater into soft, soppy love interest?

No, Vesper never convinces she is one to be loved. She remains what she is. A bitch.